Fed up with the dithering of national governments on climate change and other threats, hundreds of municipalities around the world are taking matters into their own hands. Since half the world's people now live in urban areas, these efforts could have a powerful impact.

Mayor David Miller wants to be part of that movement. "We will be the leading environmental city in North America, without question," he vowed in the Star last month.

We intend to track how well Miller and his council keep that pledge. We've consulted experts who are proposing major targets for environmental change, and we're setting out the crucial steps necessary to reach them. We'll use the benchmarks to assess Toronto and compare it to other cities.

It's a golden opportunity. The council claims to have its first green majority. The environment scores high on opinion polls. Climate change has engaged much of the world. Many businesses recognize the need to back the trend.

With less pollution and better planning, Toronto simply will be a better place to live. We'll enjoy parks and bike paths, and swimming at our beaches. We'll be less likely to be stuck in traffic jams. With reduced smog and toxic chemicals, we'll be healthier. By becoming more efficient and cutting health-care costs, we'll save money.

Other improvements are not as obvious but just as crucial. Most important, the city will be able to play a significant part in warding off the predicted ravages of climate change: searing heat waves; long periods of drought punctuated by destructive storms; the spread of pests and diseases.

Toronto has had environmental successes, particularly in recycling and using water from deep in Lake Ontario to cool downtown buildings.

"You name it, we've led," boasts Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone.

Still, the city faces a long climb to the top and next month, Miller will unveil his plan on how to get there.

The yardsticks we'll use to assess progress are tough but reasonable. They include:

We'll also keep close tabs on the 905 regions: They have the same stake in becoming green, and some major issues, such as urban sprawl and transit, can't be resolved without them.

And we'll pay particular attention to Chicago, our sister city. It's about the same size, with a similar history. It, too, is on a Great Lake, it's reinventing itself after losing many of its manufacturing jobs, and it faces almost identical environmental challenges.

Like Miller, Mayor Richard Daley vows his city will be the greenest. Two years ago Daley unveiled his own action plan and in April, a conference of politicians, environmentalists and scientists will evaluate what he has accomplished.

In an Earth Day message last April 22, he said he saw protecting the environment as part of his life's work. Daley's goal? To make Chicago "the greenest and most environmentally-friendly city in America."

Last year, the two men were pictured side-by-side in Vanity Fair as part of a package of flattering portraits of North America's greenest mayors.

And more than 402 American cities have signed the "Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement," which commits them to meet the United States's Kyoto Protocol goal.

"Each city keeps upping the ante," says Warren Karlenzig of Sustainlane, one of the U.S. groups that ranks cities. "That's what's going on now."

Perhaps this has become a race.

"That would be an excellent competition," Pantalone says. "If we all compete, everyone will benefit."

Toronto may seem to be a minor performer in some areas, particularly climate change. People here can't do much about the greenhouse gases spewing from Alberta's tar sands, or the reluctance of our federal and provincial governments to take decisive steps. Canada can't tell China to stop building coal-fuelled electricity generating stations.

But every bit helps. If cities clean up their act, then, their little corner of the world will be improved. If they're aggressive, they'll demonstrate to others the environmental and economic gains.

And if individuals see that they can produce results, they're less likely to feel helpless in the face of the national or global picture. They might even feel empowered to persuade senior governments and polluting industries to stop their dithering.

An early indication will come next month, when – after a series of workshops and symposiums – Miller will set out his climate change plan, with a new emissions target to replace one that fell by the wayside.

There's no doubt it will be tough to figure out who's greenest, since there are vast differences among cities. And not all targets are created equal, either.

Eliminating smog alerts would be difficult in Toronto or Chicago, but not so hard in, say, Boulder, Colo., where fresh breezes blow pollutants across the mountains. Should cities be rated on their actual environmental conditions, or on their effort?

Older, denser cities like Toronto, Chicago and New York tend to do better in environmental rankings despite reputations for being polluted because they are far more efficient than spread-out municipalities. That's one reason why, at just under 10 tonnes per person, Toronto's greenhouse gas emissions are less than half the Canadian average, for example.

Some cities do well on particular measures but not on others. In Chicago, the city and private developers have installed, or plan, about 300 green roofs, totalling more than 3 million sq. ft.: Toronto's program is only a third that size.

The Windy City has a worse record when it comes to recycling: It's diverting about half as much as our 40 per cent waste diversion rate. But both cities are well behind San Francisco, which is already diverting 67 per cent.

Simply setting targets isn't enough. Back in 1988, Toronto committed to cut the city's greenhouse gas emissions 20 per cent by 2005. Emissions from municipal operations have dropped, but the overall goal fell by the wayside.

Nor is it sufficient for cities to simply have policies: The measures must be effective. Many U.S. cities, for example, claim they have programs to control urban sprawl. But only one, in Portland, Ore., actually reins in development, says Charlie Lord of the Urban Ecology Institute at Boston College. While others offer developers meek incentives to do better, Portland drew a firm line 25 years ago with no sewer and water services beyond it. Many North American cities promote construction of energy-efficient buildings, some with minimal incentives. Others, as in Chicago – where developers get fee rebates and quick permit approvals for green buildings – have an impact. Only Boston now sets a mandatory standard for all large buildings.Toronto has a voluntary standard that city officials and politicians are to consider making a requirement.

Cities also don't control some problems' sources. Miami blames its poor greenhouse emissions record on the U.S. government's failure to impose car fuel efficiency standards. Much of Toronto's smog comes from coal-fuelled generating stations in the U.S. Midwest, and Ontario's giant Nanticoke plant.

Even worse, opponents have undermined good efforts: Last November, Oregon voters dealt a potentially lethal blow to Portland's sprawl control when, in a state referendum, they ordered the city to begin to compensate developers who claim the policy costs them potential income.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.